(a)to record the apology given by the Crown to Ngāi Tahu in the deed of settlement executed on 21 November 1997 by the then Prime Minister the Right Honourable James Brendan Bolger, for the Crown, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu; and

(b)to give effect to certain provisions of that deed of settlement, being a deed that settles the Ngāi Tahu claims

Background in English

AThe Treaty of Waitangi is set out, in Māori and English, in Schedule 1:

The threads of time

Transfer of Ngāi Tahu lands

BThe Treaty of Waitangi was signed by Ngāi Tahu in 1840 at Akaroa (May 30), Ruapuke Island (June 9, 10), and Ōtākou (June 13). Ngāi Tahu is today, and was at the time of the signing of the Treaty, the tāngata whenua within the boundaries already confirmed in Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996. In the years following the signing of the Treaty, the Crown, through its representatives and agents, sought the transfer of land from the Ngāi Tahu people to the Crown. This was achieved through 10 major purchases: Ōtākou 1844, Canterbury (Kemp's) 1848, Port Cooper 1849, Port Levy 1849, Murihiku 1853, Akaroa 1856, North Canterbury 1857, Kaikōura 1859, Arahura 1860, and Rakiura 1864. The Ngāi Tahu signatories to these deeds, as recorded in Appendix 2 of the Waitangi Tribunal's Ngai Tahu Report 1991, are listed in Schedule 2:

Ngāi Tahu have long sought to have their grievances redressed

CFrom an early date, Ngāi Tahu has pursued claims against the Crown of unfair purchase practices and of breaches of the deeds of purchase. Matiaha Tiramōrehu, Hori Kerei Taiaroa, Tiemi Hipi, Tipene O'Regan, and Henare Rakiihia Tau and their wives and families were most prominent in these claims:

DAs a result of Ngāi Tahu petitions and protests, some dating back to the 1840s, Ngāi Tahu's grievances have been considered by a number of inquiries. Some dismissed them after cursory investigation, but those which investigated in detail generally found validity in Ngāi Tahu's complaints. However, the Crown accepts that Ngāi Tahu's grievances were not remedied. In particular, the Ngaitahu Claim Settlement Act 1944 was enacted without prior consultation with the tribe and did not debar the tribe from further pursuing its claim:

EThrough enactment of the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985, the Crown made it possible for Māori to bring claims before the Waitangi Tribunal in respect of historic grievances arising after 6 February 1840:

FOn 26 August 1986, a claim was submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal by Henare Rakiihia Tau and the Ngāi Tahu Māori Trust Board, which represented the Ngāi Tahu iwi and was chaired by Tipene O'Regan. That claim was subsequently elaborated upon by way of several amendments:

GThe Ngāi Tahu claim, registered with the Waitangi Tribunal as Wai 27, was investigated in hearings before the Tribunal over the years 1987 to 1989:

HOn 1 February 1991, the Waitangi Tribunal reported on the main elements of the Ngāi Tahu claim, described collectively as the “Nine Tall Trees” of Ngāi Tahu's grievances, and on 6 September 1991 issued a supplementary report recommending the creation by statute of a representative tribal body for Ngāi Tahu:

IOn 6 August 1992, the Waitangi Tribunal reported on the Ngāi Tahu Sea Fisheries claim, finding that “Ngai Tahu has for more than a century been seriously prejudiced by long-standing breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi culminating in the enactment and implementation of the Quota Management System”. Those claims were subsequently settled through the settlement embodied in the Maori Fisheries Act 1989, the Deed of Settlement dated 23 September 1992 between the Crown and Māori and the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992:

JThe Waitangi Tribunal made a further report on 27 April 1995 in respect of Ngāi Tahu's Ancillary Claims:

Findings of the Tribunal: The “Nine Tall Trees”

KAfter considering the elements of the Ngāi Tahu claim, the Waitangi Tribunal found substantially in Ngāi Tahu's favour, both in relation to the elements referred to as the “Nine Tall Trees”, and to the Ancillary Claims. In particular, the Tribunal could not reconcile the Crown's enduring failure to meet its obligations to Ngāi Tahu with its duty to act towards its Treaty partner reasonably and with the utmost good faith. The Tribunal also emphasised that, in acquiring some 34.5 million acres of land from Ngāi Tahu for £14,750, the Crown acted unconscionably and in repeated breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal considered that the Crown's actions left Ngāi Tahu with insufficient land to maintain its way of life, and to enable the tribe's full participation in subsequent economic development:

LThe Tribunal indicated in general terms the nature and scope of the redress which Ngāi Tahu ought properly to receive. The Tribunal considered that the Crown ought to have restored to Ngāi Tahu sufficient land to provide for the future economic, social, and cultural development of the tribe:

MŌtākou

The Tribunal found that the Crown was under a residual obligation to make further provision for Ngāi Tahu, in addition to the reserves agreed upon during the purchase of the Ōtākou Block, and that the Crown failed to satisfy this obligation. The Tribunal considered that the Crown's obligation might have been satisfied by the creation of “Tenths”, or by other adequate provision:

Canterbury

The Tribunal found that the Crown, in acquiring the Canterbury Block, failed to negotiate fairly, failed to meet its undertaking to reserve sufficient food resources for Ngāi Tahu, and failed to meet its obligation to provide ample reserves for the existing and future needs of Ngāi Tahu. The Crown did not set aside the area defined by the Waimakariri and Kāwari Rivers, as requested by Ngāi Tahu. The Tribunal found that, in so acting, and in its subsequent failure to remedy these faults, the Crown breached its duty to act with the utmost good faith towards Ngāi Tahu:

Banks Peninsula

The Tribunal found that the Crown granted the Nanto-Bordelaise Company an interest in 30,000 acres of land on Banks Peninsula, that Ngāi Tahu had not agreed to relinquish most of this land and was not compensated for its loss, and that the Crown used high-handed and unfair methods in its dealings with Ngāi Tahu over the Port Cooper and Port Levy Blocks. Significant to the Tribunal's findings on the Port Levy Purchase was the Crown's refusal to make reserves, as requested by Ngāi Tahu, at Okains Bay, Kaituna Valley and Pigeon Bay. The Tribunal further found that the Crown had dealt with land on Banks Peninsula before it had been lawfully acquired from Ngāi Tahu and that the Crown failed to meet its obligation to provide ample reserves for the existing and future needs of Ngāi Tahu:

Murihiku

The Tribunal found that the Crown, in purchasing the Murihiku Block, failed to set aside reserves that were requested by Ngāi Tahu, failed to preserve for Ngāi Tahu reasonable access to food resources, and failed to ensure that Ngāi Tahu retained sufficient land for its existing and future needs. The Tribunal found that, in so acting, and in its subsequent failure to remedy these faults through the Middle Island Half-Caste Crown Grants Act 1877 and South Island Landless Natives Act 1906, the Crown breached its duty to act with the utmost good faith towards Ngāi Tahu:

North Canterbury and Kaikōura

The Tribunal found that Ngāi Tahu's interests and rangatiratanga in the North Canterbury and Kaikōura Blocks were gravely prejudiced by the Crown's transactions with other tribes, particularly in the Wairau Purchase of 1847, and by the Crown's disposal of land without Ngāi Tahu's consent. It found that the Crown failed both to act fairly and honourably in negotiating for the subsequent purchase of Ngāi Tahu's interests, and to provide sufficient reserves in the North Canterbury and Kaikōura Blocks for the existing and future needs of Ngāi Tahu:

Arahura

The Tribunal found that the Crown did not act fairly in its negotiations for the Arahura Block, and that the Crown failed both to set aside certain areas that Ngāi Tahu wished to retain, and to preserve for Ngāi Tahu reasonable access to food resources. It found that the Crown failed to protect the right of Ngāi Tahu to retain possession and control of all pounamu. The Tribunal also found that the Crown failed to respect Ngāi Tahu's interests and wishes when enacting a system of perpetual leases over Ngāi Tahu reserves:

Rakiura

The Tribunal found that Ngāi Tahu was disadvantaged by the delay in implementing the terms of the Rakiura purchase, the Crown having failed in its duty actively to protect Māori interests:

Mahinga kai

The Tribunal found that, when purchasing Ngāi Tahu lands, the Crown failed to ensure that Ngāi Tahu retained reasonable access to places where the tribe produced or procured food, and especially unimpeded access to Lakes Waihora and Wairewa:

Schools and hospitals

The Tribunal found that the expectation of being provided with schools and hospitals was an inducement to Ngāi Tahu in selling the Kemp and Murihiku Blocks, that the Crown failed to act promptly to provide these benefits, and that Ngāi Tahu was disadvantaged by the delay in meeting its expectations:

Negotiations between Ngāi Tahu and the Crown

NIn 1990, the Crown entered into an interim agreement with Ngāi Tahu to safeguard surplus Crown lands for the future settlement of Ngāi Tahu's claims:

OThe Crown accepted the thrust of the 1991 Waitangi Tribunal report, and, in consequence of that acceptance, in September 1991 the Crown and Ngāi Tahu entered into negotiations to seek resolution of the Ngāi Tahu grievances:

PDuring the period 1991 to 1994, the Crown and Ngāi Tahu endeavoured to negotiate a settlement:

QFollowing the passing of the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Act 1996, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, as defined in that Act, is recognised for all purposes as the representative of Ngāi Tahu Whānui pursuant to section 15 of that Act:

RIn 1996, the Crown and Ngāi Tahu negotiated in good faith in a further attempt to achieve a full and final settlement of Ngāi Tahu's historic Treaty claims and to remove the continuing sense of grievance felt by Ngāi Tahu:

SOn 14 June 1996, the Crown and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu entered into a Deed of “On Account” Settlement, pursuant to which the Crown agreed to provide certain redress to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu on an “on account” basis as a sign of good faith and a demonstration of the Crown's goodwill:

TOn 5 October 1996, the Crown and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu entered into a heads of agreement to record on a without prejudice basis the matters which they had agreed in principle should be contained in a deed of settlement to effect a settlement of Ngāi Tahu's claims and their agreement to negotiate in good faith to settle the terms of the deed of settlement:

Settlement of claim

UOn 21 November 1997, the Crown and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu entered into the deed of settlement in which the Crown acknowledged that Ngāi Tahu suffered grave injustices which significantly impaired Ngāi Tahu's economic, social and cultural development and which recorded the matters required to give effect to a settlement of all of Ngāi Tahu's historical claims.